Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Press Review | Main | Sir, I disagree: BOOM! »

Thursday, November 25, 2004

"Should Canada Indict Bush?"

Citing the Tom Walkom question in the Star, the writers at the Diplomad say "yes".

Diplomad HQS received a report from one of our Diplomads on a Sunday (today) brunch conversation with a Canadian diplomat who seemed absolutely smitten with the idea. This Canadian relished the thought of having Bush "served" a bill of indictment or arrest warrant during the President's visit to Ottawa o/a November 30. He thought this an incredibly clever idea, and spit out the reasons for indicting Bush for "crimes against humanity" -- basically the ones contained in the Walkom column and the Kasich interview, e.g., aggressive war, no UNSC approval, mistreatment of POWs and civilian populations, etc. Fortunately our Diplomad had the presence of mind -- which neither Kasich nor Walkom showed -- of asking, "What do you think the US reaction would be?" Our northern "friend" seemed taken aback by the thought, and confused, said that, well perhaps, we would protest and file something or another in Canadian court, or invoke Bush's sovereign immunity, but that in the end we would have to deal with the issue in court, presumably in a Canadian court. Oh, really?

[...]

So with regret, The Diplomad must conclude that it would indeed be a good thing for Canada to indict George W. Bush as a war criminal. The ensuing US reaction should provide a lesson in reality to Canada's politicians (the same who send Canadian sailors to die in rusty, smoke-filled second-hand subs) and its increasingly insane Ottawa - Toronto - Vancouver chattering "elite" classes.


A good one to add to your blogrolls.

Posted by Kate McMillan on November 25, 2004 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8346bc7e869e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Should Canada Indict Bush?":

Comments

Kate that Krauthammer article is a gem.

Posted by: MikeP | 2004-11-25 9:47:58 AM


It would be amusing, if only to see US Special Forces thoroughly trash Ottawa.

If the man quoted is typical of the people we employ as diplomats, then God help this benighted nation.

Posted by: gnotalex | 2004-11-25 9:56:27 AM


"If the man quoted is typical of the people we employ as diplomats, then God help this benighted nation."

I have to agree. I thought Canadian diplomats were smarter than that.

Posted by: Russil Wvong | 2004-11-25 10:10:35 AM


"Diplomacy means all the wicked devices of the Old World, spheres of influence, balances of power, secret treaties, triple alliances, and, during the interim period, appeasement of Fascism." Barbara Tuchman.

Posted by: gg | 2004-11-25 10:21:54 AM


I prefer Hans Morgenthau's description of diplomacy as comprised of three elements: persuasion, compromise, and threats.

The purpose of diplomacy is the same as the purpose of war: to force someone else to do something that they don't want to do. The advantage of war over diplomacy is that it's simple. The disadvantage is that (a) it carries tremendous risks -- it's impossible to predict exactly what will happen; and (b) with modern weaponry, it's extremely destructive.

Posted by: Russil Wvong | 2004-11-25 10:34:37 AM


Well, if diplomacy is made up of "persuasion, compromise, and threats" than Canada is 1/3 of the way there. Now all we have to do is some persuading and threatening.

Posted by: Lars Ormberg | 2004-11-25 11:21:41 AM


If we want to make credible threats, we need to strengthen our military. Bruce Rolston outlines what we could get for various levels of spending:
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2003_12_04.html

Posted by: Russil Wvong | 2004-11-25 12:18:02 PM


Note to the European Union: we understand that Canadian diplomats will indict President Bush upon his visit to Canada.

Be it understood that the US gets Alberta, Saskatchewan, the Yukon and British Columbia. After the indictment is presented to President Bush, we advise you to refrain from tampering with the aforementioned provinces, as they now belong to the United States.

Please feel free to rummage around in the remaining provinces as you will.

Posted by: Greg in Dallas | 2004-11-25 12:25:54 PM


Diplomatist sans pareil was Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Perigord (1754-1838). His daughter was Madame de Stael. The story of her meeting Napoleon is quite readable.

Posted by: gg | 2004-11-25 2:57:06 PM


Please, please take Newfoundland too USA, and deliver us from socialism!

Posted by: Ted | 2004-11-25 3:25:47 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.